We use cookies to offer you a better experience and analyse site traffic.

By continuing to use this website, you consent to the use of cookies in accordance with our Cookie Policy.

Our strength
is in our groups

Areas of Expertise

Matthew Feldman

Call 1995
Telephone 020 7831 0222
Email matthew.feldman@42br.com


Profile Privacy Notice vCard


Matthew has expertise in a wide range of property matters and general civil/commercial litigation. He has appellate experience in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, High Court and Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).

His particular areas of property-related practice include: adverse possession, boundary disputes, easements and covenants, mortgages, trusts of land, building disputes, business tenancy renewals, dilapidations/disrepair, forfeiture/possession proceedings, service charge disputes, anti-social behaviour, homelessness and statutory nuisance.

He also has wide-ranging civil/commercial experience with particular emphasis on agency disputes including cases relating to estate agents, consumer credit, enforcement of judgments, interim relief applications including freezing injunctions, misrepresentation, partnership disputes, sale of goods and services, and undue influence/duress.

In addition, Matthew is instructed increasingly in mental health work, and regularly appears in the Court of Protection.

He is licensed to accept instructions on a direct access basis.

Wills, Trusts & Probate

His particular areas of property-related practice include: trusts of land.

News & events

News & events

Housing Law Bulletin: Letting agents & Administration Fees – London Borough of Camden v. Foxtons Ltd

Matthew Feldman discusses the recent Upper Tribunal decision dealing with the thorny issue of letting agents’ administration fees. In this case, the Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) found that Foxtons Limited (‘Foxtons’) were in breach of the requirements of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (‘the Act’) in connection with published details of its relevant fees in three branches and on its website, and imposed a penalty of £4,500 in respect of each breach, amounting to £18,000.

30th October 2017 Read more


  • Matthew has experience in all aspects of property work, whether commercial or residential. He is equally experienced in general contractual disputes, and mental health work”

Professional memberships

  • Property Bar Association (PBA)
  • Constitutional & Administrative Law Bar Association (ALBA)
  • Chancery Bar Association (CHBA)
  • ACIArb

Selected cases

  • GBQ Investments Ltd v Mortgage Express & ORS, Ch D, Lawtel 04/07/18
    A case concerning the equity of redemption in relation to a portfolio of mortgaged properties.
  • Parkes v Wilkes [2017] EWHC 1556 (Ch)
    A High Court appeal in a case concerning the intention of the parties behind the purchase of the freehold interest pursuant to the collective enfranchisement provisions under the Leasehold
  • Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993.
    Chubb & Bruce v Dean & Anr [2013] EWHC 1282 (Ch)
  • An application for an order for sale in a mortgage case dealing with (i) the applicable rate of interest due, (ii) whether matters gave rise to an ‘unfair relationship’ between the parties under s140B of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, and (iii) appropriation.
  • Yemshaw v Hounslow LBC [2011] UKSC 3
    The Supreme Court held that the term ‘domestic violence’ in section 177(1) of the Housing Act 1996 included physical violence, threatening or intimidating behaviour and any other form of abuse which, directly or indirectly, might give rise to the risk of harm.
  • Yemshaw v Hounslow LBC [2009] EWCA Civ 1543
    The meaning of ‘domestic violence’ in section 177(1) of the Housing Act 1996.
  • Patel v Singh and Anor [2009] EWHC 2980 (Fam) Successful claim in a 17 day trial under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996.
  • R (McGarrett) v Kingston Crown Court [2009] EWHC 1776 (Admin)
    The Divisional Court held that the purpose of an ASBO was not to punish, and the terms of the order had to be proportionate to the risk to be guarded against. Further, the order had to be both necessary and justified.
  • Vesely v David Levy & Others [2007] EWCA Civ 367; [2008] L & TR 9 Whether a fixed contribution towards joint household expenditure was capable of amounting to rent, and whether the purpose of the arrangement between the parties and the surrounding circumstances gave rise to the inference that there was an intention to create a landlord and tenant relationship between the parties.
  • London & Quadrant Housing Trust v Ansell [2007] EWCA Civ 326; (2007) HLR 37


  • Legal Action, October 2015, Autunes v Smith and Right Move Lettings & Property Management Services Limited
  • Clear Intentions’ – a discussion of the impact of Jones v Kernott in cases where there is an express declaration of beneficial interests, Family Law Journal, March 2012
  • Legal Action, September 2012, Oyzen v Bell-Gam


  • BA Joint Hons French/Italian (Manchester)
  • Dip. Law (University of Westminster)